8th April 2003, 9:16 PM
But, as you said, no proof that they had anything to do with 9/11... and that was what was supposed to be the centerpiece of the conviction -- that Sadaam helped in 9/11. We now know pretty well that he didn't... and that kind of invalidated a major point of Bush's...
Did they harbor some terrorists? I wouldn't be surprised. So does Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and most of the rest of the Gulf... he's hardly alone... Saudi Arabian princes helped fund Al Quaida. Does that mean we should go and attack them? No... it does mean we should look at them more carefully, and do something within the law to try to deal with the problem. Because going to war doesn't get rid of terrorism. Sure, you might take out some leaders... but the end result with wars like this? The Arab people will be more willing to be terrorists than ever... and more governments will like us less... so I'd say that while in the very short term it does reduce terrorism, in the medium term and long term it does the exact opposite.
Did they harbor some terrorists? I wouldn't be surprised. So does Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and most of the rest of the Gulf... he's hardly alone... Saudi Arabian princes helped fund Al Quaida. Does that mean we should go and attack them? No... it does mean we should look at them more carefully, and do something within the law to try to deal with the problem. Because going to war doesn't get rid of terrorism. Sure, you might take out some leaders... but the end result with wars like this? The Arab people will be more willing to be terrorists than ever... and more governments will like us less... so I'd say that while in the very short term it does reduce terrorism, in the medium term and long term it does the exact opposite.